20231128Clerks Certificate of Appeal.pdf

Idaho Public Utilities Commission Brad Little,Governor
P.O.Box 83720,Boise,ID 83720-0074 Eric Anderson,President
John R.Hammond,Jr.,Commissioner
Edward Lodge,commissioner
November 28,2023
Via E-Mail and Interagency Mail
supremecourtdocuments idcourts.net
Melanie Gagnepain
Clerk of the Courts
Supreme Court
451 W.State Street
Boise,Idaho 83720-0101
Re:PUC Clerk's Certificate of Appeal
Supreme Court Docket No.:
Dear Ms.Gagnepain,
Enclosed for your information and action is the Clerk's Certificate of Appeal from theIdahoPublicUtilitiesCommission.Also enclosed is Christy Armbruster's Notice ofAppealfiledonNovember10,2023,and the $94 filing fee,received on November 14,2023.
I have also enclosed copies of the two PUC Orders appealed from:Final Order No.35849
and ReconsiderationOrder No.35904.
If you have any questions,please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Interim Commission Secretary
Enclosures
cc:Adam Triplett,Deputy Attorney General
ELECTRIC\PAC RMP Smart Meter \SUP-E-23-03\Armbruster SC CvrLtr 20231128 docx
P.O.Box 83720,Boise,Idaho 83720-0074 Telephone:[phone],Fax:[phone]
11331 W.Chinden Blvd.,Bldg.8,Suite 201-A,Boise,Idaho 83714
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H.VAN MASTRIGHT,et al,)
)Supreme Court DocketCOMPLAINANTS-APPELLANTS,)No.
vs.)
)Idaho Public Utilities CommissionIDAHOPUBLICUTILITIES)Case Nos.PAC-E-23-04;PAC-E-23-COMMISSION and PACIFICORP,d/bla )05;PAC-E-23-06;PAC-E-23-07;ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER )PAC-E-23-08;and PAC-E-23-11COMPANY,)
RESPONDENTS.)
Appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission,The Honorable Eric Anderson presiding.
Case Number from Idaho Public Utilities Commission:PAC-E-23-08
Order or Judgment Appealed from:Final Order No.35849 and Final Reconsideration OrderNo.35904
Attorneyfor Appellant:N/A
Christy Armbruster,pro se
3807 E 120 N
Rigby,Idaho 83442
armbruca vahoo.com
Attorneyfor Respondent Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
Adam Triplett
Deputy AttorneyGeneral
P.O.Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
adam.triplett puc.idaho.cov
Attorneyfor Respondent PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas
Senior Attorney
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah,Ste.2000
Portland,OR 97232
ioseph.dallas pacificorp.com
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL -1
Appealed by:Christy Armbruster
Appealed against:Idaho Public Utilities Commission and PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky
Mountain Power
Notice of Appeal Filed:November 10,2023
Amended Notice of Appeal filed:N/A
Notice of Cross-appeal Filed:N/A
Amended Notice of Cross-appeal Filed:N/A
AppellateFee Paid:$94.00 (November 14,2023)
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Appeal Request for Additional Record Filed:N/A
Respondent or Cross-Respondent's Request for Additional Reporter'sTranscript Filed:N/A
Was Agency Reporter'sTranscriptRequested:No
Estimated Number of Pages:N/A
If so,name of each reporter of whom a transcript has been requested as named below at
the address set out below:N/A
Dated this 28th day of November 2023.
{SEAL}
,T.,,Monica Barrios-Sar c ez,Interim Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL -2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023,SERVED THE FOREGOING Clerk's Certificate ofAppeal,in IPUC Case No.PAC-E-23-08,ON THE FOLLOWING PERSONS,AS INDICATED BELOW:
Appellant,pro se:
Christy Armbruster,pro se -E-Mail to armbrucadvahoo.com3807E120N
Rigby,Idaho 83442
Respondent,PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas E-Mail to ioseph.dallas pacificorp.com825NEMultnomah,Ste.2000 .mark.alder pacificorp.comPortland,OR 97232
Respondent,IPUC:
Adam Triplett E-Mail to adam.triplett puc.idaho.covDeputyAttorneyGeneral
P.O.Box 83720
Boise,Idaho 83720-0074
Monica BarrÏos-Sanchez
Interim Commission Secretary
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL -3
RECEIVED
2023 NOVEMBER 13, 2023 8:00AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. SUP-E-23-03
ORDER NO. 35904 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 25, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,

COMPLAINANTS,

vs.

PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,

RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11

ORDER NO. 35904

Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concerned the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if the
customers refused to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI
meter(s)”) at their residences. The central theme of the Complaints focused the customers’ desire
to avoid installation of AMI meters at their homes. Reasons cited for not wanting AMI meters
included age and health of the complainants, a child with special needs in proximity to the home’s
meter, lack of legal authority allowing the Company to install the AMI meters, data privacy, and
a request for an opt-out provision.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file
an answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the customers filed five
objections to the Company’s request for dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT(s).”2
On July 11, 2023, the Commission entered a Final Order dismissing the Complaints.
Order No. 35849. The Final Order provides, in pertinent part:
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed
and decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence

1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
ORDER NO. 35904 2

on AMI meter safety and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal
law. As we have stated previously, the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of
devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters, and the FCC has approved AMI
meters as safe for consumer use. . . .

Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted
materials, the Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence
to support a finding that AMI meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that
public utilities in Idaho should be required to provide an opt-out option for AMI
meters. . . .

We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace
existing meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to
provide access to the Company representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among
other things] repairing or removing metering devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the
Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an AMI meter. If
Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish
and maintain all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos.
6 and 7 require that the Company provide its customers with the meter and
associated metering equipment and requires the customer to provide the Company
with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the foregoing, the Company
has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’ property
in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.

Id. In the Final Order, the Commission also found that the Company had communicated its
willingness, upon request, to relocate the AMI meter to a different location on the Complainants’
property at their expense. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the facts in each case did
not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an AMI meter and
dismissed the complaints. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331, the
Complainants were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to
petition for reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31, 2023, Complainants Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Petition for
Reconsideration (“Petition”) of Order No. 35849.3 The Edwards base their claim that the
Commission erred in Order No. 35849 upon two contentions: (1) that the Commission

3 Mr. Edwards represents that he requested the other complainants refrain from seeking reconsideration to “reduce
confusion or generalization” from consideration of multiple complaints. Pet. for Recon. at 3.
ORDER NO. 35904 3

misinterpreted the relevant Electronic Service Regulations (“ESR”) applicable to the Company;
and (2) that requiring 100 percent compliance AMI metering requirement is unreasonable. In their
Petition, the Edwards contend that AMI meters lack surge protection and, therefore, constitute a
“downgrade” from the electromechanical metering already installed at their property. According
to the Edwards, ESR 6(2)(d) does not authorize meter access for purposes of installing technology
to replace that already in place, nor does ESR 7(1) provide the Company sole discretion to replace
a meter with any technology. The Edwards also suggest something less than 100 percent customer
compliance with the Company’s AMI metering initiative would be just and reasonable.
As evidence that AMI meters pose a safety concern, the Edwards attached a document
purporting to be an amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute
in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Povacz v. Penn. Pub. Utility Comm., 280 A.3d
975 (Pa. 2022).4 Included in an addendum to the purported brief are a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters. However, it does not appear that the statements or reports
were given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury, nor does the
purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania case.5
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration provides an opportunity for any interested person to bring to the
Commission’s attention any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979); see also Eagle Water
Company v. Idaho PUC, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997). Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration, Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to specify
“why the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Commission Rule of Procedure 331 further
requires the petitioner to indicate “the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner

4 In Povacz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a challenge by electric customers to the installation of AMI
meters (termed “smart meters” in the opinion) on their property. In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held
that the customers failed to show that the AMI meters were unsafe or that forced exposure to AMI meters constituted
unreasonable service. Id. at 1009-13.
5 On August 4, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration (“Answer”) requesting that it
be denied. On August 8, 2023, the Edwards filed an Objection to the Company’s Answer.
ORDER NO. 35904 4

will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. Grounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported
by specific explanation may be dismissed. IDAPA 31.01.01.332. As discussed below, the Edwards
have not shown in their Petition that Order No. 35849 (or an issue decided in it) is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Nor have the Edwards identified evidence
that warrants granting their petition.
The Edwards’ argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR is, at best, a slight
variation of their previous argument that the ESRs do not obligate them to permit the Company to
upgrade their existing meter. Rather than characterizing installation of an AMI meter as an
upgrade, the Edwards contend it would be a downgrade because such meters lack surge protection.
However, the Edwards did not present evidence supporting their conclusory assertion that the AMI
meter the Company seeks to install would lack surge protection, even if the absence of such
protection renders an AMI meter a downgrade in the Edwards’ opinion. More importantly, beyond
the conclusory assertion that “a substantive change of metering capability to residents’ electric
meters” differs from furnishing and maintaining meters and equipment under the ESR, the
Edwards have not supported their argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR with
cogent argument or citation to legal authority.
Similarly, the Edwards have failed to show declining customers an opt-out option is
unreasonable. According to the Edwards, failing to allow opt-outs has left disconnection as the
only option open to “a medically sensitive minority of the public.” Ostensibly, the Edwards are
concerned about adverse medical effects resulting from radio frequency (“RF”) radiation that AMI
meters emit. As noted in previous Commission orders (e.g., Order Nos. 32500, 33979, and 35544),
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has adopted safety limits for RF devices
operating near humans. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093. The Edwards do not
contend that the Company intends to install an AMI meter that does not comply with FCC
requirements. Rather, the Edwards ostensibly assert that AMI meters pose a safety concern,
regardless of FCC requirements. In support of this contention, the Edwards attached the
aforementioned amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute.
However, the Edwards have not authenticated the document as being what they claim it to be, nor
does the purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania appeal.
ORDER NO. 35904 5

Moreover, although an addendum to the purported brief includes a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters, the reports and statements do not appear to have been
given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury. Such
unauthenticated and unsworn evidence is insufficient to overcome the conclusions of the FCC
regarding generally safe levels of RF radiation.6 Even if it were, the Edwards have not presented
evidence indicating AMI meters pose a demonstrable, credible health and safety concern to those
residing in their home to suggest that our decision in Order No. 35849 was unreasonable, unlawful,
erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Finally, the Edwards have not addressed why placing
such a meter away from their home as the Company agreed to do would not sufficiently address
their health and safety concerns about and AMI meters.
In sum, despite the sincerity of the Edwards concerns, the Commission will continue
adhering to the FCC’s position on safe levels of RF radiation. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that the Edwards’ Petition should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
///

6 In their Petition, the Edwards cite an argument presented in the amicus brief that FCC guidelines cannot support
conclusions regarding RF safety because a federal court remanded a decision by the FCC not to revisit the limits on
RF radiation established in 1996. Specifically, in Env't Health Tr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, a divided panel of the
D.C. Circuit held that the FCC failed to respond to evidence in the record indicating that exposure to RF radiation
below current FCC limits may case negative health effects unrelated to cancer. 9 F.4th 893, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Although Environmental Health Trust suggests that relevant scientific knowledge has evolved since the FCC last
updated the limits for RF radiation, the case does not support a claim that RF radiation at, or below, current FCC limits
causes adverse health effects in humans.
ORDER NO. 35904 6

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 25th day
of August 2023.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER

EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_recon_at.docx
ORDER NO. 35849 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,

COMPLAINANTS,

vs.

PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,

RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11

ORDER NO. 35849

Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concern the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if customers
refuse to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI meter(s)”) at
their residences.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file an
answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 22, 2023, the Commission received five objections to the Company’s request for
dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”2
Having reviewed the record in these cases, we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaints.
THE COMPLAINTS
In their Complaints, the Complainants presented various reasons for not wanting an AMI
meter installed on their property including the age and health of the complainants, a claimed lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install AMI meters, and concerns over data privacy.
Some Complainants also requested the ability to opt-out of having an AMI meter. Five of the

1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
ORDER NO. 35849 2

Complainants refused to have an AMI meter installed on their residence, the sixth provided consent
to allow an AMI meter to be installed but alleged that the consent was unlawfully obtained. Several
of the Complainants presented almost identical “Factual Counts” that allege that the Company: (1)
breached the peace by attempting to install AMI meters on their residence; (2) attempted extortion
of Complainant’s will; (3) impaired contracts; (4) attempted extortion by trying to take over the
Complainant’s private property for commercial use; (5) attempted illegal wiretapping; and (6)
threatened the Complainant’s with intent to commit harm. Some of the complainants allege
additional “Factual Counts” of (1) gross and hazardous negligence; and (2) “actionable fraud.”
Two of the Complainants also alleged the Company was committing elder abuse.3
The Complainants all asserted that they have attempted in good faith to resolve their issues
with the Company regarding the deployment of AMI meters, and the Complainants alleged the
Company is operating in bad faith, and using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and
coercion. See, e.g., Complaint of Jacoba H. van Mastrigt at 1. The Complainants also argued that
they have paid their bills for electric service they receive from the Company on time.
Several of the Complainants argued the Company only has the authority to enter their
properties for specific reasons (i.e., meter reading) and that any other access must be authorized
by the property owner for certain matters including troubleshooting and making repairs to
electrical equipment. The Complainants further claim they do allow the Company to access their
properties to read meters but are not granting the Company access to exchange meters.
COMPANY ANSWER
The Company responded to the Complaints by first describing the notification process it
engaged in and its discussions of alternatives for customers who did not want an AMI meter on
their residences. Then the Company described the allegations and requests made by the
Complainants. Lastly, the Company answered the Complaints lodged against its AMI meter roll-
out and moved to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
Communication
The Company represented that it started deploying AMI meters in Idaho in the fall of 2021
and has since completed over 84,000 exchanges. The Company stated that it communicated with
customers during AMI meter deployment with “letters, emails, and outbound phone calls

3 Most of these claims are civil tort claims or criminal. The Commission is not the appropriate body to the extent the
Complaints seek any damages or the imposition of criminal liability.
ORDER NO. 35849 3

informing customers of the Company’s AMI installation process.” Company Answer at 3. The
Company asserted that “AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.” Id. During the
deployment of the AMI meters, the Company stated that about 160 customers objected to the
installation of AMI meters, and the Company then worked with those customers to reach a
resolution. The Company explained it “was willing accommodate customers by relocating the AMI
[meter] to a different location of the property” at the customer’s expense. Id. at 4. The Company
represented it “expressed a willingness to continue working directly with these customers to find
a resolution. However, keeping their current meter is not an option for any of our customers in
Idaho, and disconnection of service will only be used as a last resort after proper notice has been
provided.” Id. The Company represented that it successfully resolved the concerns of 110 of the
customers who had initially objected, and the Company exchanged those meters. Id.
For the 50 remaining customers, the Company represented that it began to formally notify
them that, pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules (“UCRR”), their service would be
terminated if they continued to refuse the installation of an AMI meter. Id. The Company cited
UCRR 302, IDAPA 31.21.01.302, which allows for termination of service if meter access is
denied, as the Company’s primary argument for its formal process to begin disconnection. Id.
Along with UCRR 302, the Company cited UCRRs 304 and 305, IDAPA 31.21.01.304-.305, for
the notification requirements to disconnect a customer under UCRR 302. Id.
The Company asserted it sent an initial letter (“First Letter”) to the customers who refused
the meter exchange informing them of the Company’s inability to access the meter for a meter
exchange, and the Company followed that letter with additional correspondence (“Second Letter”)
providing an explanation of the benefits and customer privacy protections afforded by AMI meters.
Id. at 5 and 7-8. The Company then sent a final letter (“Final Letter”) notifying customers that their
service would be terminated. The Company also stated that the Second and Final Letters informed
customers, including the Complainants, how to avoid termination of service. Id. The Company
represented that the Final Letter also stated that “a certificate notifying the utility of a serious
illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service as prescribed by
Rule 308.” Id. Finally, the Company stated that its employees began delivering notices in person
and attempting to resolve the issues customers cited regarding AMI meters before it planned on
terminating service. Id. at 8.
ORDER NO. 35849 4

Answer and Motion
The Company: (1) denied all factual allegations in the Complaints that were not admitted
in its Answer; (2) explained its belief that industry standards have determined AMI meters do not
provide a threat of harm to customers; and (3) claimed that the required UCRR notices it sent to
customers who refused access were not threats and the Company did not violate any contract,
procedure, rule or law with its requirement for AMI meter installations. The Company asked the
Commission to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Company denied using “threats, duress, or coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI [meter] installation.” Id. at 7. The Company discussed its communication efforts where it
ultimately warned customers that without access to meters, the Company would initiate the
termination process and terminate service if unable to resolve the issue of meter access. The
Company noted that those communications were “developed in accordance with the UCRR’s
approved by the Commission…” and merely warned customers of the possibilities if access was
refused. Id at 8.
The Company maintained that it is allowed to terminate customers’ service if not allowed
to access the meters, and without an opt-out in Idaho, that is the only option available. The
Company stated that it did discuss alternatives available to customers like relocating the new AMI
meter on the customer’s property.
The Company cited Electric Service Regulation (“ESR”) No. 6(2)(d), which provides that
“[t]he Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company’s representatives at
reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering
devices and wiring of the Company,” and which its customers agree to as a condition of service.
Id. at 9 quoting ESR No. 6(2)(d). The Company disputed the assertion in the Complaints that the
Company does have physical access to the meters stating that “refusing a meter upgrade is not safe
and unencumbered access” under ESR 6(2)(d). Id. Further the Company stated that ESR No. 7
requires the Company “to furnish and maintain all meters and other metering equipment” and does
not prohibit or proscribe a specific type of meter. Id. quoting ESR No. 7.
The Company discussed the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) jurisdiction
over devices emitting radio frequency, like AMI meters. The Company represents that the FCC
ensures the safety of these devices pursuant to “the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
among other laws.” Id. at 10.
ORDER NO. 35849 5

The Company also asserted “[i]ndustry research and standards agencies, such as the
American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”) have compiled the research” concerning exposure to radio frequencies
energy and created guidelines that the FCC and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have adopted. Id. The Company stated those standards define the maximum
permissible exposure (“MPE”) standards and the two categories they are assigned to, the controlled
and uncontrolled environments. Id. The uncontrolled environment applies to the general public,
like residential homes, and includes heightened safety requirements by FCC standards. The MPE
for the controlled environment is 5:1, meaning the FCC’s MPE limit for the general public is 50X
less than research shows can cause harm to humans. Id. at 11.
The Company discussed the history of AMI meters in Idaho and represented that the
Company is the last major electric utility to install this infrastructure. The Company noted that
AMI meters first became available almost 20 years ago. The Company cited previous cases for
Avista, Idaho Power, and itself where the Commission dismissed complaints about AMI and/or
denied a request to require public utilities to provide an opt-out provision. Case Nos. PAC-E-22-
09, AVU-E-17-11, and IPC-E-12-04. The Company stated that the Commission has never “ruled
that a public utility’s AMI project, which does not include an opt-out option, violates an
administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff.” Id. at 12.
The Company stated the Complaints “do not identify any specific administrative rule,
order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff” violated by the Company. Id. at 13.
Further, the Company claimed it acted in compliance with rules and regulations that apply to notice
and termination for complainants’ refusal to grant access to meters.
Objection and Amendments
In their Objection and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Objections”), van Mastrigt and
Twede stated that until the Company produces a rule that specifically authorizes termination for
refusing to accept an AMI meter, the Company cannot install the AMI meter or terminate service.
The Objections reiterated several points first addressed in the original Complaints about access,
safety, data acquisition, and trespassing technology. The Objections also argued matters raised in
ORDER NO. 35849 6

the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” filed by each.4 The Objections also ask the
Commission to address all criminal counts they allege have been committed by the Company.
The Commission received various other documents in response to the Company’s Answer
that essentially restated the same claims from the original Complaints and asked the Commission
to reject the Company’s Motion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable. Idaho Code § 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and
to fix the same by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503.
The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined
in its administrative rules and does not provide preferential treatment to any party participating in
the process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02. The Commission has had previous opportunities to
review AMI meter complaints and the prevailing scientific research on customer safety, and in
each instance the Commission has concluded that AMI meters do not pose a risk to the safety and
health of customers, comply with Idaho Code § 61-302, and should be allowed in Idaho. See Case
Nos. IPC-E-12-04, AVU-E-17-11, and PAC-E-22-09. The Commission has also recognized that
the FCC has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of radio frequency radiation that is
permitted by AMI meters, and that the FCC has found it to be safe. See Order No. 35544 at 2. The
Commission has also never required a utility to offer an opt-out for AMI meters.
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed and
decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety
and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal law. As we have stated previously,
the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters,
and the FCC has approved AMI meters as safe for consumer use.
The Commission is authorized to ensure that every public utility furnishes service,
instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities as shall promote the safety, health, comfort, and

4 The “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” generally allege the same facts and “FACTUAL COUNTS” as
the Complaints.
ORDER NO. 35849 7

convenience of its customers and the public. Idaho Code § 61-302. The Commission is once again
asked to weigh the FCC’s safety approval of the use of AMI meters and similar devices and
withhold the benefits and efficiencies that customers derive from the use of such devices, and the
history of AMI meter use by electric utilities in Idaho, against the claims presented in the
Complaints.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the
Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI meters.
The Commission finds the record demonstrates that the Company and the Complainants
have been in contact with each other about the issues surrounding the Company’s deployment of
AMI meters. The record also shows that the Company intends to replace meters that it owns, and
the Company has complied with the UCRR through its communications with the Complainants.
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace existing
meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition of receiving the
Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to provide access to the Company
representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among other things] repairing or removing metering
devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an
AMI meter. If Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish and maintain
all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos. 6 and 7 require that the
Company provide its customers with the meter and associated metering equipment and requires
the customer to provide the Company with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the
foregoing, the Company has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’
property in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
The Commission also finds that the Company has been clear about its willingness to
relocate AMI meters to a different location on the Complainants’ property at the Complainants’
expense if requested to. ESR No. 12 provides information on the Company’s line extension and
relocation policies. The Commission finds that the Complainants have been offered an opportunity
to resolve this matter, and they have chosen not to do so. The Commission finds that the facts in
ORDER NO. 35849 8

these cases do not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an
AMI meter. Accordingly, the Complainants’ Complaints are dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaints filed in the above captioned cases are
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 11th day of
July 2023.

ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT

JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER

EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_final_dh.docx